Can Numbers Be Lexicalized?

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
582 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Jan 12, 2010

Numbers, indeed, can be lexicalized!

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 0 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (5)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Well, it is interesting that you bought up your subject. I personally don't like it because my opinion is that it is similar to a slang sign. I also think that it is a sloppy signing. Anyone who signs too quickly which is a rude manner. Thanks for sharing your information.

  • Thanks, Adam. I hadn’t thought of numbers as lexicalized, but now I understand. I talk about “approximative” numbers in my vague language (VL) workshops— numbers like 30-something, 70s, 16-17-19, 1-ish (as opposed to 1:00 sharp). Now I have another word to use to describe these numbers: lexicalized! Thanks.

  • Adam, this is great! You need to make your own number sign video! Your clarity and explanation are wonderful, THANKS!

  • Yes, i strongly agree with you about that.

  • Great points!. This is exactly what I was trying to describe to my friends the other day when we had a debate on whether to use 2-0-10, 2-10, or 20-10 for the year 2010. I personally like using 2-10. It's more natural for me. I'm not saying the other ways are wrong either. With lexicalized signs such as JOB and BANK, you don't see the O or A. This applies to 2-10 for the year 2010. It is an interesting discussion to start off the new decade! :-)

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more